https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92067 The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for possession of smuggled gold biscuits. The judge found that the adjudicating authority's decision was not supported by evidence of defacement or conscious possession by the appellant, a goldsmith. Despite upholding the confiscation of the gold biscuits, the judge concluded that the appellant was not liable for the penalty due to the lack of sufficient proof of smuggling and conscious possession. en-us Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:45:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92067 The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for possession of smuggled gold biscuits. The judge found that the adjudicating authority's decision was not supported by evidence of defacement or conscious possession by the appellant, a goldsmith. Despite upholding the confiscation of the gold biscuits, the judge concluded that the appellant was not liable for the penalty due to the lack of sufficient proof of smuggling and conscious possession. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92067